Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication] Re: patents? You haven't seen anything yet...

Expand Messages
  • Graham Stabler
    Although to be honest we have had several on the same topic so I might be wrong :) Graham On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Mike Polcyn ... Although to be
    Message 1 of 41 , Nov 24, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Although to be honest we have had several on the same topic so I might be wrong :)

      Graham


      On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Mike Polcyn <lizardman2000@...> wrote:
       

      Thanks Graham... by bad... not following the thread closely enough I guess.
      M


      --- On Sat, 11/24/12, Graham Stabler <grezmos@...> wrote:

      From: Graham Stabler <grezmos@...>

      Subject: Re: [diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication] Re: patents? You haven't seen anything yet...
      To: diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, November 24, 2012, 5:58 PM


       

      There was earlier reference to jewellery by someone else.


      Graham

      On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Mike Polcyn <lizardman2000@...> wrote:
       

      Thanks Jon, My comments were regarding utility patents... which is what I thought we were discussing here...

      from the patent office website (below)


      The Difference Between Design and Utility Patents

      In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a "design patent" protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance. While utility and design patents afford legally separate protection, the utility and ornamentality of an article are not easily separable. Articles of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics.




      --- On Sat, 11/24/12, Jon Elson <elson@...> wrote:

      From: Jon Elson <elson@...>

      Subject: Re: [diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication] Re: patents? You haven't seen anything yet...
      To: diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, November 24, 2012, 2:36 PM


       

      Mike Polcyn wrote:
      >
      >
      > I am not an attorney but I do understand a bit about U.S. patent law
      > as an inventor and as one who has had to defend against infringement
      > claims. The bottom line is that "Claim Language" is binary; you
      > infringe or you don't infringe particular claims.
      >
      OK, one thing to remember is the PTO handles both design patents and
      innovation
      patents. The innovation or invention patents involve claims bearing on
      procedures,
      processes and functions. The design patents involve design elements
      like shapes,
      colors, fonts and similar things. So, the Nike "swoosh" and the shape
      of the
      old Coke bottle are design patents, and the claim is the physical object.
      Defending design patents is very different from the other type.
      Jewelry patterns would also come under the design type.

      Jon



    • Jon Elson
      ... The specific patent they refer to by number deals with some kind of partial hardening of the resin to support overhangs. I m not sure if that partially
      Message 41 of 41 , Nov 25, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Kenneth Lerman wrote:
        >
        > One thing I noticed in the complaint was a section saying that there
        > was no non-infringing use of the allegedly infringing device. Since
        > the patent under discussion seems to relate to exposure for supports,
        > it is clear that making objects that don't require support would be a
        > non-infringing use.
        The specific patent they refer to by number deals with some kind of
        partial hardening
        of the resin to support overhangs. I'm not sure if that partially
        hardened stuff is later
        dissolved, scraped away, or hardens completely later. But, it seems to
        deal with
        a very specific concept that I doubt formlabs is using. So, at least to
        my reading,
        it is not dealing with ordinary support structures, but something more
        specialized
        to support overhangs WITHOUT dedicated support structure from the bottom
        up. This directing the court to a SPECIFIC patent, while only mentioning
        that there are others, might be enough to scotch the whole suit. (I
        hope so,
        but I'm NOT a lawyer.)

        Jon
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.